<p>What is going on? Go to CNN, today both Iran and N. Korea are coming out of the woodwork. N. Korea is pulling out of weapons talks, and has announced it has a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, Iran is trying to do the same thing. Iran's leader promises to make the country a "fiery hell" for any invaders. Could we be on the eve of another war?</p>
<p>Oh geez I jus don't know anymore. The world is becoming so much more turbulent.</p>
<p>"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." ~ Theodore Roosevelt.</p>
<p>Maybe we should return to that instead of yapping of the time.</p>
<p>I agree completely.</p>
<p>I also think there's something to be said for isolationism...</p>
<p>Well not completely isolation; you need to maintain some relations in order to preserve economic ties and security.</p>
<p>it'd be pretty foolish to run into a country that is known to possess nuclear weapons; it's why we invaded Iraq instead of Iran or North Korea in the first place. The point was, that this administration did not prioritize- how can you see Iraq and Saddam Hussein as more threatening than Kim? His people have even less freedom than the Iraqis.</p>
<p>Hear, hear. Peronally, to protect our nation we must defend the home front and build up our society to defend "American" values rather than half-heartedly galloping off to another country with romantic visions of the international system being a democracy. </p>
<p>But if we follow Kant's ideas of "perpectual peace," galloping of into the distance may be the right way, only if we do so responsibly.</p>
<p>how completely ironic that you would use a Teddy R quote in trying to justify isolationism.</p>
<p>two words: panama canal.</p>
<p>my thoughts are that we should get China to help us with N. Korea. and Iran's next for us, time and date unknown.</p>
<p>Err, I wasn't using T.R. to justify isolationism. My idea was more of less talk, more action, which doesn't mean necessarily going to war or anything. Just less flapping of the lips.</p>
<p>Of course, T.R. was not an isolationist; he basically instigated the rebellion of Panamanians because Columbia wouldn't let usb build the canal.</p>
<p>Iran's next, I know. It's scary and I hope that reason will kick in; there is no possible way that we can sustain action in Iran while managing Iraq and Afghanistan. That's stretching our resources. The only way to go to Iran is if we miraculously have people enlisting themselves or conscription occurs.</p>
<p>eiffelguy, our resources are already being stretched. Iran won't happen until we're out of Iraq, in a type of Islamic-fundamental-regime hopping technique similar to our military strategy in the Pacific during WWII. Except this time, we're going from war to war instead of battle to battle. </p>
<p>Does anyone else see the start of WWIII approaching, or is it just me?</p>
<p>True. Our resources are stretched. In fact, it was President G.W. Bush who said that his goal (in his first 4 years) was to withdraw troops and to prevent that; he protested involvement in Kosovo, stating that it wasn't the responsibility of the United States to be a police. Oh, the irony.</p>
<p>babybird, I agree that China holds the ace in the North Korea quagmire. I believe this is the #1 reason why the US is refusing bilateral talks with Kim's regime...</p>
<p>I don't know what will be placed on a higher priority, Iran, or North Korea. I suppose Iran will because the proximity of known terrorists and weapons together, but how horribly perceived our country must be in the Islamic world..so much hate on both sides these days.</p>
<p>i'm just not sure what's a bigger threat-- N. Korea or Iran. if Bush wants to keep with the terrorist thing and continuity and legacy, he'll go for Iran. but i somehow feel N.Korea is dangerous, especially because they shouldn't even have nuclear weapons right now-- if Clinton's little deal had worked out. Which it didn't. N.K completely disobeyed the stipulations of that agreement, and we have Clinton to blame.</p>
<p>Of course, Bush 43 had 4 full years to do SOMETHING about North Korea, but he instead put the focus on a nation that was not an immediate military threat, rather than one that most certainly is.</p>
<p>it is amazing that anybody would still be thinking that this president will not go to war, continuously, over the next four years. he lied about iraq and he wont make the same mistake again: so his whole body and soul not to mention his last campaign platform has clearly told the world his priority: reach out and assault other countries who might become a problem in the future. first assault. all under the premise that making an election possible in each place (read: creating democracy) will bring about world peace and make america safer.
all it actually does do is to de-stablize the world into an every widening crisis.
but all that is besides the point: again, why would anybody surprised that if he attacks iran, or north korea or columbia? he has just appointed his national security advisor to be secretary of state. he has an arch hawk for vp, who went underground for 6 months after 9.11.
the more important thing to focus on everybody is: how can we prevent jeb bush from becoming president in 2008? who can we field against this war machine in the making?</p>
<p>Hillary's underrated.</p>
<p>In an anarchic international system, that's what happens. If the country no longer benefits from the agreement, then that country withdraws from the agreement. It's as simple as that. Whether or not President Clinton had the foresight to predict North Korea's withdrawal from the agreement is the question. </p>
<p>North Korea has nuclear weapons, and it's a fact. The United States cannot just march into to Pyongyang like we did in Baghdad. The North Koreans actually have weapons of mass destruction to use, not just a claim based on bad intelligence. </p>
<p>And as for Iran? They're developping nuclear programmes too. Instead of having just the United States solve this problem, the EU should be brought in; there is no point in having the United States has the sole power; it's only quickening the end of its hegemonic power.</p>
<p>I agree, Europe should play a more active role. But if its citizenry wants to take the isolationist stance, what else can we do?</p>
<p>I'm waiting for John Mearsheimer's predictions to come true.</p>
<p>It's interesting, the EU encourages that the US must be involved in all the world affairs yet is terribly upset when we do get involved. You can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>If it's citizenry wants to take the isolationist stance, they should not be surprised if the United States does not intervene if they're imbroiled in another world war. </p>
<p>The German Problem will always exist.</p>
<p>It's not Clinton's fault. He saw a window in the Middle East and tried to go for it. The Bush administration only made it worse and turned their backs to the problem and undid any progress he ever would have made.</p>